4/0-4/0-2/0-4 USE-2/RHH/RHW-2 Aluminum Cable assembly

[augie47]

My concern was based on conduit being exposed on the outside of the structure. Our POCO would not allow concealed service conduits,

 

[Shortcircuited26]

My concern was based on conduit being exposed on the outside of the structure. Our POCO would not allow concealed service conduits,

I don’t think we have restrictions here for that. That said, the customer had the entire service add-on engineered from somebody, fingers crossed on a few of the items but probably isn’t somethingwe can’t fix

 

[Little Bill]

In 300.5(D)(4), I only see a requirement for Schedule 80 if the raceway is subject to damage. Do you make the judgement that all exposed raceways emerging from grade are subject to damage?

There is not an inspector in my area (which would involve 4 or 5) that would allow anything but sch 80 up to the meter base from below grade. Subject to physical damage is a judgement call, and they all "judge" it to be so.
I think their reasoning is the conductors are unfused.

 

[kwired]

In 300.5(D)(4), I only see a requirement for Schedule 80 if the raceway is subject to damage. Do you make the judgement that all exposed raceways emerging from grade are subject to damage?

Basically up to the discretion of the AHJ. Here anything outdoors emerging from grade is almost always going to be considered subject to damage. Indoors will be more of a case by case thing.

 

[kwired]

My concern was based on conduit being exposed on the outside of the structure. Our POCO would not allow concealed service conduits,

Here that is usually not a problem with POCO's if on load side of meter. That also usually is beyond the"service point" so NEC applies and the EI pretty much has total jurisdiction over this portion of the install.